Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Bangladesh is paying a cruel price for the west’s excesses
Veena Khaleque, The Guardian
The deadly effects of climate change are already being felt in the developing world. Fine words are not enough
—-
While the west puzzles over ways to curb future climate change, in the developing world the present climate change is being felt already, and there is nothing abstract about it. Every year an estimated 150,000 people die as a result of global warming – mainly through natural disasters, disease and malnutrition – and the toll is rising exponentially. There is much talk, but little is done.
The industrialised world has pumped huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, setting us on a course where a global temperature rise of at least two degrees Celsius is inevitable. That may not sound much, but for people here in Bangladesh those two degrees amount to a catastrophe.
The average Briton produces 48 times more carbon dioxide than someone living Bangladesh. And yet it is here that the impact of those emissions is being felt. Bangladesh is one of the world’s largest deltas, formed by a dense network of 230 unstable rivers; most of the country is less than 10 metres above sea level. It is also one of the poorest countries in the world: 50% of our population lives in poverty, 51% of our children are malnourished. A low economic capacity, inadequate infrastructure and a higher dependence on a natural-resource base exacerbate our vulnerability.
Scientists tell us that the most profoundly damaging impact of climate change in Bangladesh will take form in floods, salinity intrusion and droughts, all of which will drastically affect crop productivity and food security. We will also face riverbank erosion, sea water level rise and lack of fresh water in the coastal zones. The prognosis is more extreme floods in a country already devastated by floods; less food for a country in which half our children already don’t have enough to eat; and less clean water for a country where waterborne diseases are already responsible for 24% of all deaths.
(7 Dec 2006)
Senator gives global warming alarm a final cold shoulder
Zachary Coile, SF Chronicle
GOP’s Inhofe, chairing his last committee hearing, says media has been alarmist
—-
Sen. James Inhofe, in his last hearing as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, blamed Hollywood and the news media Wednesday for “hyping” the view that humans are causing global warming.
“It’s unfortunate that so many are focused on alarmism rather than a responsible path forward on this issue,” the Oklahoma Republican said.
California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who will take the committee gavel from Inhofe in January, shook her head and said it was sad that one of the last days of the 109th Congress was spent criticizing media coverage of climate change instead of working on legislation to curb greenhouse gases.
(7 Dec 2006)
The departure of climate-denier Inhofe is a significant change for the better. The original article has more news on the meeting of this important Senate committee. -BA
Exxon Spends Millions to Cast Doubt on Warming
Andrew Buncombe, the Independent (UK)
The world’s largest energy company is still spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund European organisations that seek to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on global warming and undermine support for legislation to curb emission of greenhouse gases.
Data collated by a Brussels-based watchdog reveals that ExxonMobil has put money into projects that criticise the Kyoto treaty and question the findings of scientific groups. Environmental campaigners say Texas-based Exxon is trying to influence opinion-makers in Brussels because Europe – rather than the US – is the driving force for action on climate change.
“ExxonMobil invests significant amounts in letting think-tanks, seemingly respectable sources, sow doubts about the need for EU governments to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said Olivier Hoedeman, of the Corporate Europe Observatory. “Covert funding for climate sceptics is deeply hypocritical because ExxonMobil spends major sums on advertising to present itself as an environmentally responsible company.”
It has long been known that the oil giant, which in 2005 recorded an all-time record for quarterly income, has spent millions of dollars to fund climate sceptics. Exactly how much is unknown but some estimates suggest $19m (£9.7m) since 1998.
(7 Dec 2006)
US science teachers pass on climate DVDs
New Scientist
Psst! Want 50,000 free DVDs? The US National Science Teachers Association didn’t, even though the DVDs in question were of An Inconvenient Truth, the climate change movie that is required viewing for all children in Norway and Sweden.
Why not? Because according to Laurie David, one of the film’s producers, the NSTA has accepted millions of dollars from oil firms, including Exxon Mobil and Shell. The NSTA has even promoted oil companies’ “special interests and implicit endorsements”, David said in the The Washington Post on 26 November.
Not so, Jodie Peterson of NSTA told New Scientist. “Our board of directors has to approve our funding before it is accepted. No one has ever given us money with any stipulations attached; it’s just never happened.”
NSTA president-elect Jonathan Witsett said during a call-in to National Public Radio that NSTA would have accepted the donated DVDs if it hadn’t been for the distribution costs, which he estimated at $250,000.
(7 Dec 2006)
This has to be terrible publicity for the science teachers. And rightly so — since students learn more from the ACTIONS of teachers than from their words. The NSTA has been trying to de-fuse the situation, but to me their response – NSTA Statement on the Distribution of “An Inconvenient Truth” – is unconvincing. -BA
Americans try to shift into ‘carbon neutral’
Gregory M. Lamb, Christian Science Monitor
To combat global warming, many try to remove as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they add to it.
—-
Are you living “carbon neutral” – or better yet, “carbon negative”? Have you gone on a “carbon diet”? Are you shrinking your “carbon footprint” on the earth or aiming for a “net zero” lifestyle?
If so, you’ve got lots of company, including celebrities, sports teams, airlines, moviemakers, tour operators, and at least one college. They’re all trying to make sure that they’re removing at least as much carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide, or CO2) from the atmosphere as they add from heating their homes or businesses or traveling by car or airplane.
Americans have been shutting off lights, stuffing insulation into attics, and carpooling to save gas at least since President Jimmy Carter pulled on his cardigan and talked to the nation about saving energy nearly three decades ago.
In the 21st century, though, the conservation message has changed: While fossil fuels such as oil and coal continue to dwindle and become more expensive, burning them now has an almost certain link to the warming of the planet’s atmosphere, creating a rapidly changing climate that could wreak havoc.
People are eager to help, and going “carbon neutral” has become a popular answer.
(6 Dec 2006)
A Dream Blown Away
Joel Garreau, Washington Post
Climate Change Already Has a Chilling Effect on Where Americans Can Build Their Homes
~~
A place near the water has been an American dream for a very long time. Fifty-four percent of Americans live within 50 miles of a coast.
This is the year, however, in which the big boys in global finance got religion about climate change. As a result, this American dream — as far north as the Washington area, and even New York and New England — is under attack.
…Emotion, however, does not drive insurance writers. By definition, they are the world’s most serious futurists. When it comes to life insurance, for example, they pride themselves on their ability to routinely and accurately predict when a whole lot of people are going to die. If their models are wrong, and they have to pay out too much money too quickly, they go bankrupt.
As a result, these fiduciaries have a long and distinguished history of driving social change. Passion-laden causes move beyond the realm of hand-waving activists when large gray men in large gray suits decide they must.
Highway fatalities dropped when insurance companies started financially punishing unsafe drivers, as well as makers of unsafe cars. Cigarette smokers saw their life insurance premiums skyrocket.
The big buzz in the insurance industry today is climate change.
(2 Dec 2006)
